Over the last 40 years, every republican president has increased devicit spending, and every democratic president has reduced deficit spending.

Jimmy Carter, 1977-1981, increased deficits, but a lot of that was money beign spent to help get us off fossil fuels. Reagan threw out Carter's energy plan, which if followed would no w have the U.S. on at least 50% renewable (non-nuclear) energy sources.

@snytiger6 Too bad the average voter is unaware of this fact and the republican voter is just plain stupid of any history. Maybe we should ask if these deficits might be reduced by instilling a more progressive tax system.

For as long as I can remember there has always been at least one far right elected official wanting to end social security.

I'd have no problem with that, but it would cut into the profits of large contributors to campaigns... so I don't think it is likely to happen.

They don't have a clue, and they don't want to know about it..

Yup, let's put the pay of congresscritters up for a vote every year, oh wait, we already do, and imagine that, it passes every time with an almost unanimous vote... to raise it...

@TomMcGiverin It wouldn't take effect until the following year, anyway, so not an effective method of vengeance. Nor do I agree with doing so as we'll get nobody competent to run a nation if we don't pay them enough. I do agree with stopping participation in WS or other income-beneficial benefits except speaking fees.

@rainmanjr I disagree with you on the pay issue for congress. Not everybody who is competent would refuse to run, look at Paul Wellstone and Bernie, for example. The obstacle to getting competent and uncorrupt people in congress is not people being too greedy to run if it paid lower, the problem is how much someone has to either be rich already or have sold their soul in advance to get or have enough money to run and win federal elections.

@TomMcGiverin I wouldn't work for too much less than I could make in private sector just for the honor of serving Americans. We've hardly demonstrated a value to uphold but there is some degree of hope. I'm poor so if I wouldn't then there may not be a lot of Wellstones or Bernies to stop the next coup attempt (and one is coming, I'm afraid).

@rainmanjr I still think you are more materialistic than maybe a lot of other Americans who could be competent leaders. Money is not everything to everybody, certainly not to me. As long as the job payed enough to afford living in DC and having a decent standard of living, I still think there are plenty of competent folks who would do it, esp. if they felt they were making a difference and helping. It's the same reason lots of people become teachers, social workers, etc. even if they could make more money in the private sector. I think you are just too cynical about it. The issue is how much money it takes to win a federal election and how to get it, not how much they are paid. I agree with the rest of your comment tho...

I was poor most of my adult life, and that's a big part of why I never had kids. There are plenty of other people who have made that same decision, partly because they cared more about serving the public or helping people, than making enough money to afford kids. Including lots of teachers and nuns.

@TomMcGiverin I'll cop to being cynical but I'm also a minimalist. I would accept a bit less than going rate, for the honor, but not a great deal less. Yin/Yang is part of all actions and events so there is no such thing as "doing good" works. All of it just kind of works out until it doesn't. We might very well be in that period of time when it doesn't.